Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Inserting a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt by means of interventional radiology has become the procedure of choice for decompression of portal hypertension. The indications and criteria for patient selection have been expanded and refined accordingly.

Objectives: To review our experience with TIPS[1] and analyze the results with emphasis on patient selection and indication (conventional vs. atypical).

Methods: In this retrospective analysis in a single center all cases were managed by a multidisciplinary team (comprising liver surgery and transplantation, hepatology, imaging, interventional radiology and intensive care).

Results: Between August 2003 and December 2009, 34 patients (mean age 51, range 27–76 years) were treated with TIPS. The cause of portal hypertension was cirrhosis (23 cases), hypercoagulabilty complicated by Budd-Chiari syndrome (n=6), and acute portal vein thrombosis (n=5). Clinical indications for TIPS included treatment or secondary prevention of variceal bleeding (10 cases), refractory ascites (n=18), mesenteric ischemia due to acute portal vein thrombosis (n=5), and acute liver failure (n=1). TIPS was urgent in 18 cases (53%) and elective in 16. Three deaths occurred following urgent TIPS. The overall related complication rate was 32%: transient encephalopathy (6 cases), ischemic hepatitis (n=2), acute renal failure (n=2) and bleeding (n=1). Long-term results of TIPS were defined as good in 25 cases (73%), fair in 4 (12%) and failure in 5 (15%). In three of five patients with mesenteric ischemia following acute portal vein thrombosis, surgery was obviated. Revision of TIPS due to stenosis or thrombosis was needed in 7 cases (20%).

Conclusions: TIPS is safe and effective. While its benefit for patients with portal hypertension is clear, the role of TIPS in treatment of portal-mesenteric venous thrombosis needs further evaluation. Patient selection, establishing the indication and performing TIPS should be done by a multidisciplinary dedicated team.

Background: The model for end-stage liver disease is the best available predictor of waiting list mortality among liver transplant candidates.

Objectives: To validate the applicability of MELD[1] in Israel.

Methods: All candidates awaiting liver transplantation in our institution were followed prospectively since 2002. We measured the concordance (c-statistic) equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in order to assess the predictive power of MELD. Other independent mortality risk factors were identified by a separate multivariate analysis. Mortality rates within different MELD and Child‑Pugh‑Turcotte scores were compared to the original (United States) MELD data.

Results: Of 86 patients listed for transplantation, 40 were transplanted (36 in Israel and 4 abroad). Of the other 46 patients, 24 are alive and still listed, and 22 died (25%, ~7%/year). The area under the ROC[2] curve for MELD score was 0.79 (0.83 USA) compared to a CPT[3] score of 0.71 (O.76 USA). High MELD scores, occurrence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma were independent risk factors of mortality. Death rates per mid MELD score (20–29) were significantly higher than the USA results.

Conclusions: MELD is valid in Israel and superior to CPT in predicting waiting list mortality. Although longer waiting time due to organ scarcity is a key factor, death rates in the mid-range (10–29) MELD groups indicate further audit of the care of patients with end‑stage liver disease.

Objective: To present our algorithm of urgent and elective donor selection.

Methods: Urgent selection is expeditious and protocol‑based. Elective selection permits a comprehensive process. Both include medical, psychosocial and surgical-anatomic evaluations. Liver volumes and vascular anatomy are evaluated with computerized tomographic angiography. Informed consent is obtained after painstaking explanations. Independent institutional committees review and approve all cases.

Results: Between July 2003 and June 2004 we evaluated 43 potential live donors for 12 potential recipients (fulminant hepatic failure, n=5; chronic end-stage liver disease, n=6); primary graft non-function, n=1). Thirty-three candidates (76%) were excluded due to blood type incompatibility (n=14, 42%), incompatible anatomy (n=8, 24%) – including problematic volume distribution (n=2) or vascular anatomy (n=6) – psychosocial issues (n=4, 12%), or medical co-morbidity (n=7, 22%). Five recipients (FHF[1], n=4; chronic ESLD[2], n=1) were successfully transplanted from living donors. In the acute setting, two patients (FHF, PGNF[3]) died in the absence of an appropriate donor (cadaveric or living donor). In the elective group, one patient died of unexpected variceal bleeding and one received a cadaveric graft just before the planned living donor transplantation was performed. One candidate was transplanted overseas and two cases are scheduled. The ratio of compatibility for donation was 34% (10/29) for blood type-compatible candidates.

Conclusions: Donor selection for living donor liver transplantation is a complex, labor-intensive multidisciplinary process. Most exclusions are due to blood type incompatibility or anatomic details. Psychosocial aspects of these donations warrant special attention.

___________

[1] FHF = fulminant hepatic failure

[2] ESLD = chronic end-stage liver disease

[3] PGNF = primary graft non-function

Background: The prognosis of patients with fulminant hepatic failure without timely liver transplantation is dismal. Given the limited availability of cadaveric organs for urgent transplantation in Israel, adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation may be the only alternative.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with urgent lifesaving LDLT[1] in this unique scenario.

Methods: Three adult patients with FHF[2] (two of unknown etiology, one with paracetamol intoxication) were transferred from other institutions and admitted to our intensive care unit. Initial treatment and monitoring included intracranial pressure monitoring and hepatic dialysis using the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System. Expeditious potential donor selection included medical, psychosocial and surgical evaluation. Liver volume and vascular anatomic compatibility were assessed with computed tomography angiography.

Results: Between July and October 2003 we performed three procedures of urgent adult-to-adult LDLT. The donors (two uncles, one sister) underwent hepatic resection (two right lobes, one left lateral segment) and recovered well. The recipients underwent total hepatectomy with caval preservation, followed by lobar grafting. All recipients recovered and are alive with good liver function and without any neurologic complications.

Conclusions: Urgent adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation can be performed safely and timely as a lifesaving procedure in the setting of comatose patients with FHF.

Background: Despite advances in cancer therapy the treatment of liver tumors remains a challenge. Most patients are poor candidates for surgical resection; both chemotherapy and irradiation have a low success rate and neither is without complications. New minimally invasive techniques for ablation of unresectable tumors have gained attention as effective treatment alternatives. Among these are percutaneous ethanol injection and radiofrequency ablation; both are effective for primary liver tumors and RFA is also effective for hepatic metastases.

Objective: To report our experience with PEI and RFA in the treatment of hepatic lesions.

Methods: The study included 49 lesions in 27 patients: 23 primary lesions in 13 patients treated with PEI and 26 lesions (22 secondary and 4 primary) in 14 patients treated with RFA. PEI was performed on an outpatient basis in the ultrasound suite; RFA was done in hospitalized patients (9 in the ultrasound suite and 4 in the operating room). Patients were followed with triphasic spiral computerized tomography 1 month after treatment and every 3±6 months thereafter.

Results: Complete necrosis was achieved with PEI on the first attempt in 11 of 23 primary lesions (91.3%). In 8.7% (2/23) a second series of treatments was required. Using RFA, complete necrosis was achieved in 85% of lesions (22/26) and partial necrosis in 15% (4/26). Complications included low fever (3 patients), high fever and abscess formation (1 patient), peri-tumoral necrosis (1 patient ) and portal vein thrombosis (1 patient ).

Conclusions: Our preliminary results confirm that PEI and RFA are an effective and safe option for treating hepatic tumors in patients unfit for surgery.